Candidate Biden had announced the nomination of
a commission to reform the court system;
President Biden has formed a commission
only to enlarge the Supreme Court and limit justices’ terms.
Has Attorney General Judge Merrick Garland prevailed
to reduce the commission’s scope
so as to prevent any investigation into judges’ conduct,
which would have exposed
his unlawful 100% dismissal of complaints against fellow judges and
the consequent cover-up of his and their underlying abuse of power?
Exposing the connivance between
the President and the Federal Judiciary
can bring down, not just a president, but rather a branch:
an unaccountable Judiciary
risklessly running a racketeering enterprise.
Pitching a story with Pulitzer Prize potential
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-ProPublica_&_media.pdf
President Biden has formed a commission
only to enlarge the Supreme Court and limit justices’ terms.
Has Attorney General Judge Merrick Garland prevailed
to reduce the commission’s scope
so as to prevent any investigation into judges’ conduct,
which would have exposed
his unlawful 100% dismissal of complaints against fellow judges and
the consequent cover-up of his and their underlying abuse of power?
Exposing the connivance between
the President and the Federal Judiciary
can bring down, not just a president, but rather a branch:
an unaccountable Judiciary
risklessly running a racketeering enterprise.
Pitching a story with Pulitzer Prize potential
http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-ProPublica_&_media.pdf
By
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com
Mr. Charles Ornstein, Managing Editor
Ms. Tracy Weber, Deputy Managing Editor
ProPublica
tel. (917)512-0222
Ms. Tracy Weber, Deputy Managing Editor
ProPublica
tel. (917)512-0222
charles.ornstein@propublica.org
tracy.weber@propublica.org,
https://www.propublica.org/people
tracy.weber@propublica.org,
https://www.propublica.org/people
Dear Mr. Ornstein and Ms. Weber, all other members of the media, and Advocates of Honest Judiciaries,
This is a story pitch.
Your experience, as described in your bionote, has drawn me to pitch the story to both of you in particular: You have investigated national entities, namely, the health care and the pharmaceutical industries. You, Mr. Ornstein, won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service; and you, Ms. Weber, won the Pulitzer for National Reporting. Combined, you have won an impressive array of other major journalism awards.
You are a team of journalists capable of investigating the national story summarized in the above title. In the process, you can make a name for yourselves and ProPublica, and bring so much needed relief to those who individually can do nothing but continue to be the victims in the story: We the People.
A. An investigation by you that launches a generalized media investigation
1. You “produce accountability journalism on issues of importance to the community”. The issue of accountability is at the top of the public debate here and abroad. That is shown by the movements MeToo!, BLM, against police brutality, for socio-economic equality, and to protect the Asian/Pacific Islander communities.
2. Your investigation can set in motion a generalized media investigation to hold the most powerful public officers accountable, namely, federal judges. A single federal judge can declare any law unconstitutional, although debated, passed, and enacted by 535 members of Congress and a president elected by scores of millions of voters.
3. By declaring laws, and progressively the whole agenda of a party, unconstitutional, federal judges can prevent politicians, even a whole party, from delivering on their campaign promises, dooming them to appear inefficient and incompetent when running for reelection.
a. In fact, federal District Judge James Robart of Seattle, Washington State, suspended nationwide President Trump’s ban on Muslim travel and a panel of three circuit judges –although two would have sufficed– sustained the ban nationwide. Yet, candidate Trump had campaigned in 2016 on issuing that ban and received the votes of more than 62.5 million voters.
4. In addition, federal judges are the only officers to have a life-appointment and the concomitant long memory for holding grudges.
5. As a result, the politicians who recommend, endorse, nominate, and confirm them thereafter fear their devastating power of retaliation:
6. To avoid becoming their retaliatory target, politicians dare not even investigate ‘their men and women on the bench’ regardless of how illegal or unethical their conduct may appear to be. This explains how federal judges are in practice irremovable: In the last 232 years since the creation of the Federal Judiciary in 1789, the number of federal judges impeached and removed is 8!
7. Protected from any investigation and held unaccountable by politicians -and by themselves, as shown below-, federal judges grab gains and convenience(>OL2:455§§B, D) individually and as a judicial class by risklessly abusing their enormous power over people’s property, liberty, and all the rights and duties that frame their lives and shape their identity.
8. Federal judges –who set the example of allowable abuse for their state counterparts– confirm Lord Acton’s statement in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton of April 3, 1887: “Power corrupts, and absolute power [whose essential element is unaccountability] corrupts absolutely”.
9. You, Mr. Ornstein and Ms. Weber, have the experience to start the investigation into federal judges’ riskless abuse of power and thereby set off a generalized media investigation that starts holding them accountable on behalf of the People
B. From a reform of the system of justice to a commission only to enlarge the Supreme Court and limit its justices’ terms
10. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016. President Obama nominated his successor, to wit, Then-Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
11. The Republicans argued that the general election in November 2016 was so close that it should be left to the American voters to elect the president who would nominate a justice to a life-appointment office. On that basis, they denied Judge Garland even a hearing. Shortly after taking office, President Trump nominated and the Senate confirmed to the Supreme Court Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
12. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020. This inevitably posed the question whether the Republicans would be consistent in applying the same principle, and all the more so since the general election of November 3, 2020, was much closer. The Republicans were not. Instead, they nominated and confirmed Then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
13. This caused the Court to tilt to the right with a decisive 6-3 Republican-leaning majority given that meanwhile President Trump had successfully nominated thereto Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.
14. The debate ensued whether if Candidate Biden won the election, he would increase the number of Supreme Court justices –popularly known as ‘packing the Court’– so as to nominate more candidates that would ensure a Democratic-leaning majority.
15. When Candidate Biden was interviewed by CBS newsanchor Norah O’Donnell on October 22, 2020, he was asked whether he would increase the number of justices. Instead of answering that question, he emphatically announced that if he became president, he would nominate a bipartisan commission to study for 180 days, ‘not the number of justices, but rather the reform of the court system’ and report its recommendations.
C. AG Judge Garland’s conflict of interest was resolved to protect his interest in avoiding any investigation into judges
16. After Candidate Biden won the presidential election, he nominated as his attorney general precisely Judge Merrick Garland, whose 7-year term as chief judge had ended on February 11, 2020.
17. Judge Garland’s status as judge and now attorney general has given rise to an insurmountable conflict of interests. This is how it has arisen.
18. The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the Act; 28 USC §§351-364) allows any person to file a complaint against a federal judge in the court of appeals of the circuit, or the national court, where the judge sits.
19. The official statistics on complaints against federal judges are collected and submitted to Congress(§604(a)(3-4)) as a public document in the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The director is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court(§601).
20. The complaint is first reviewed by the chief judge, who must not investigate it. But the chief judge can dismiss it by alleging, for example, that the complaint is not within the scope of the Act; or is “directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling” or “frivolous”(§352).
21. To protect their fellow judges, chief judges systematically dismiss 100% of complaints and deny 100% of the petitions to review dismissals.
22. The significance of those statistics becomes apparent upon learning that the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (known as RICO; 18 USC §§1961-1968) provides that two acts of racketeering committed within 10 years constitute “a pattern of racketeering activity”(§1961(5)). A defendant convicted of having engaged in such a pattern can be imprisoned for 20 years and, depending on the offense, for life.
23. The 100% complaint dismissal and petition denial is a pattern and far much more: It is a policy. As such, it can reasonably be presumed to have been explicitly coordinated among federal judges, including the Supreme Court justices. It is their institutionalized modus operandi.
24. Judges implement that policy by abusing their power to ensure their unaccountability. They do it at the expense of complainants, whom they knowingly deprive of any relief from, or compensation for, the abusive conduct complained about. Federal judges conspire to deprive We the People of the due process right to “equal protection of the law” (U.S. Constitution, 14th and 5th Amendments). They arrogate to themselves the status of “Judges Can Do No Wrong Under Any Law”.
25. So, the official statistics show that P. Trump SCt nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, P. Obama SCt nominee Chief Judge Garland, and their peers in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit received during the 1oct06/30sep17 11-year period, 478 complaints against federal judges in their Circuit. Chief Judge Garland and his predecessor dismissed 100% of them.
26. In addition, these chief judges and their peers and colleagues in their Circuit’s judicial council (28 USC§332) denied 100% of the petitions to review those dismissals. They did so –as all other judges do– in the most perfunctory way possible: by having the clerk of court dump review petitions out of court by issuing a form whose only operative word is “denied”, with no discussion of the law or any statement of reasons or facts whatsoever. A denial as arbitrary and contemptuous as a fiat, for ‘kings need not explain; they only order’.
27. By so doing, Chief Judge Garland and his peers and colleagues arrogated to themselves the power to render that Act of Congress useless as a means of complaining against federal judges.
28. He and they have shown bias and partiality toward their fellow judges and their riskless abuse of power for their gain and convenience. Conversely and necessarily, they have shown reckless indifference to the plight of the complainants and the fate of the rest of the People, left at the mercy of unaccountable judges regardless of the nature, extent, and gravity of their abuse. Their systematic dismissal and denial is typical of what their peers and colleagues throughout the Federal Judiciary do.
29. It is obvious that if Attorney General Judge Garland allowed the investigation of complaints against judges by the commission for the reform of the court system that Candidate Biden had announced, never mind a complaint filed with the FBI or the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, he would end up investigated and incriminated for both his abuse of power in dismissing 100% of complaints against his fellow judges and denying 100% of dismissal review petitions; and covering up the abuse of power underlying the complaints.
30. Such cover-up has made Judge Garland an accessory after the abuse that he learned about but explicitly or implicitly agreed to turn a blind eye to; as well as an accessory before the abuse that the same abuser or other people committed in reliance on the expectation arising from his previous conduct that he would likewise turn a blind eye to it. Of course, he may also be covering up his own abuse as a principal, i.e. the person who actually committed the abuse or ordered its commission.
31. Moreover, his abuse of power as a principal and/or an accessory has made him vulnerable to fellow judges’ “trading up” in plea bargaining, whereby in exchange for leniency they would agree to testify to the abuse of ‘a bigger fish’ than them, that is, AG Judge Garland, or even ‘the biggest fish’, his boss, President Biden. Of this grave risk he is reminded by the menacing warning that all judges have carved on their foreheads: ‘I know about your own abuse. If you let anybody bring me down, I’ll take you with me!‘
32. These facts set the foundation for the investigative question prompted by the White House press release of April 9, 2021, “President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States”
a. Did AG Judge Garland in connivance with President Biden scale down the commission from one to reform the court system to one dealing with only the enlargement of the Supreme Court and the limitation of justices’ terms, not because that was in the interest of justice, let alone of We the People, but rather because they wanted to protect their own interest in not being investigated and ending up at the center of a national scandal exposing federal judges as riskless grabbers of gains and convenience and the Federal Judiciary as a racketeering enterprise?
D. Public outrage’s role in energizing a generalized media investigation into judges and their judiciaries
33. Due to Covid-19, millions of people have lost their jobs or only have precarious ones and suffer every day from lack of food or food insecurity. How outraged would they become if they learned that judges, who individually earn some four times the average national household income, abuse their power to grab yet more gains and convenience?
34. Public outrage can be so intense as to lead to the resignation of one, several, or all the justices. They participated in the abuse as lower court judges and currently cover it up as circuit justices (28 USC §42) allotted with supervisory duties to the several circuits. Many chief circuit judges and fellow judges would also find the call for their resignation by an outraged People too widespread and profound to remain in office.
35. You, Mr. Ornstein and Ms. Weber, can set off such public outrage by conducting a pin-pointed and cost-efficient investigation that in turn sets in motion a generalized media investigation.
E. Leads to investigate abusive judges and their racketeering Judiciary
36. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a politician knowledgeable about financial matters, dare denounce in her “I have a plan for the Federal Judiciary too” how federal judges fail to recuse themselves from cases in which they own stock in a company that is a party to the case before them in order to resolve the ensuing conflict of interests in their favor by protecting or increasing their stock’s value. Sen. Warren refers to such practice throughout the Federal Judiciary as judges’ abusive self-enrichment. She attributes it to their unaccountability.
a. Such self-enrichment necessarily entails their commission of the crimes of concealment of assets, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, and breach of contract for judicial services, of public trust, and of the oath of office. But it is riskless for judges. So they become predators, always prowling for the next prey.
37. Thomson Reuters conducted a nationwide investigation into state judges and published the first of its three-part report “The Teflon Robe”, which found “hardwired judicial corruption”, on June 30, 2020.
38. Boston Globe, the main newspaper in Massachusetts and a reputable one, published on September 30, 2018, its report “Inside our secret courts”, in whose “private criminal hearings [conducted even by clerks with no law degree], who you are –and who you know– may be just as important as right and wrong”.
39. The FBI has vetted thousands of judicial candidates and produced reports on them kept secret up to now. To vet them it exercised its power of subpoena, search and seizure, and contempt, which the media lack. Its reports are bound to contain embarrassing and incriminating information about the unethical and illegal conduct in which judicial candidates engaged before taking the bench and even thereafter given that they have felt protected by their peers and colleagues, who abuse their power to cover up their fellow judges’ abuse. After all, people were acceptable as judicial candidates because they had shown that they understood how the power game is played and were playing it.
a. You can call into question President Biden’s honesty, good faith, and commitment to transparency by demanding that he release the FBI’s secret vetting reports on judicial candidates.
b. It is reasonable to expect that progressively many other journalists and media outlets will join you in such demand as they realize that they must not fail to jump on the investigative bandwagon that you have set rolling.
40. I have collected an abundance of leads to start the investigation into, generally, judges and their judiciaries(OL:194§E) and, particularly, AG Judge Garland, and Supreme Court justices.
a. I am willing and able to participate in the investigation. For proof, there is my three-volume study* † ♣ based on professional law research and writing, and strategic thinking, thus titled:
Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting* † ♣
Consequent Riskless Abuse of Power:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of
judicial unaccountability reporting* † ♣
* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page# up to prefix OL:page393
† Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates2.pdf >from OL2:394-1143
♣ Volume 3: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL3/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates3.pdf >from OL3:1144-latest article
i. Open the downloaded files using Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available for free.
b. Supported by that study are the articles that I have written and posted to my website Judicial Discipline Reform at http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org. They have attracted so many webvisitors and the latter have reacted to them so positively that 38,574+ [as of May 24, 2021] have become subscribers to it(Appendix 3). How many law firms, never mind lawyers, do you know who have a website with so many subscribers?
1) You can join the subscribers thus:
go to http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org <left panel ↓Register
or
+ New or Users >Add New.
or
+ New or Users >Add New.
c. You can publish one or a series of my articles(>Appendix 6) bound to outrage parties to cases as well as the rest of the People, such as:
1) the mathematical demonstration that judges do not read the overwhelming majority of briefs. The outrage that this will provoke can lead to the formation of local chapters of parties to collectively demand that the same judge before whom they have appeared or those of the same court in which they filed their cases compensate them for the waste of money in producing their briefs –which can cost a party $1Ks and even $10Ks to produce– and for the fraud inflicted on them.
2) judges’ interception of the emails and mail of people to detect and suppress those of their critics. This can constitute one of the most outrageous abuses because it infringes on Americans’ most cherished rights, namely, those under the U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, guaranteeing their “freedom of speech, of the press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble [through the Internet and on social media too], and to petition the Government [of which judges are the third branch] for a redress of grievances [including compensation for waste and fraud]”;
3) judges’ bankruptcy fraud scheme. The gains that they grab through this scheme they must necessarily cover up. To that end, they pretend to comply with their duty to file annual financial disclosure reports under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 USC, Appendix). They do so by including false and misleading data in their reports. The latter are filed with a reviewing committee composed of other fellow judges, who are also subject to the same filing duty. Hence, the reviewers have every interest in being as indulgent with the filers as they want the filers and their friends to be eventually with them. Judges’ reports have been collected by, and are downloadable from, JudicialWatch.org.
F. Unprecedented citizens hearings for the People to reform the system of justice
41. We can join forces in promoting unprecedented citizens hearings on unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power. For the first time ever, hearings on a public issue will be organized by media stations and universities throughout the country.
a. These citizens hearings will afford the opportunity for victims of, and witnesses to, judges’ abuse of power to tell their story to the national public; and do so mostly through interactive video conference to reduce travel expenses; reach the largest life audience possible; and receive their feedback in real time.
b. They will have their stories taken down by, and answer the questions of, multidisciplinary panels of journalists, professors, and experts.
c. The leading panelists will draw up a report to be presented at the first-ever conference on judges’ unaccountability and abuse of power, which will be broadcast nationally and internationally.
d. The citizens hearings are intended to be the unbiased and uncompromising means of exposing judicial abuse of power; spark the formation of local chapters of victims; and impart the unstoppable momentum for We the People to reform, not only the court system, but rather the system of justice here and abroad.
G. My offer of a presentation to you and your group of colleagues
42. I offer to pitch this story to you and a group of your colleagues at a presentation via video conference or, if here in New York City, in person.
44. To set its terms and schedule it you may use my contact information below
45. To consult with others on this pitch and/or interest potential guests in attending my presentation you may widely share this article and post it to social media, such as:
Facebook
Youtube
WhatsApp
LinkedIn
Instagram
Google plus
Pinterest
Reddit
Snapchat
Youtube
Google plus
Snapchat
Twitter: Did P Biden drop his announced commission to reform the court system, limiting it to the Supreme Court, at the urging of AG Judge Garland trying to prevent any investigation into himself & fellow judges; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/OL2/DrRCordero-ProPublica_&_media.pdf
H. Every meaningful cause needs resources for its advancement; none can be continued, let alone advanced, without money
Put your money
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.
where your outrage at abuse and
passion for justice are.
DONATE
to
Judicial Discipline Reform
by making a deposit or an online transfer to Citi Bank,
routing number 021 000 089, account 4977 59 2001
routing number 021 000 089, account 4977 59 2001
or by mailing a check to the address below.
Dare trigger history!…and you may enter it.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6506
tel. (718)827-9521
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com
Judicial Discipline Reform
2165 Bruckner Blvd.
Bronx, NY 10472-6506
tel. (718)827-9521
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq@verizon.net , DrRCordero@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic@yahoo.com
NOTE: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at *>ggl:1 et seq. and †>OL2:1114§G, when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email addresses and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
**********************************
